Dr. Bogdan-Constantin Ibanescu (p), Dr. Alexandra Gheorghiu

This paper examines how perceived access to services structures territorial justice, wellbeing, and the emergence of left-behindness. Moving beyond approaches that either aggregate all services into a single index or rely exclusively on objective distance-based indicators, we conceptualise access as the perceived travel time required to reach services and distinguish between two analytically salient bundles: basic services (e.g., markets, primary schools, family doctors, pharmacies) and specialised services (e.g., high schools, universities, advanced health services, cultural venues). Using a latent class approach, we identify four accessibility regimes that capture how service access is experienced as a configuration rather than as independent dimensions. This typology replaces binary framings (close/far; present/absent) with graded categories of perceived distance, providing a policy-relevant framework for differentiated interventions.
Results reveal that the most favourable perceived access does not concentrate in the largest metropolitan cores, but rather in medium-sized cities—particularly those between roughly 50,000 and 200,000 inhabitants—where service diversity is paired with lower everyday mobility frictions and a stronger sense of fairness. Beyond a threshold of approximately 200,000 inhabitants, perceived accessibility can deteriorate due to congestion, longer intra-urban travel times, and functional relocation of certain services away from high-rent central areas. Conversely, small towns and rural areas show systematic disadvantages, with rural territories exhibiting not only limited specialised services but also concerning gaps in basic services, deepening perceived territorial injustice.
Regional patterns further indicate that accessibility outcomes depend less on simple urban–rural composition and more on the structure of urban networks. Regions with well-distributed intermediate centres tend to delay the appearance of penalised classes, whereas territories dominated by a few large cores and many very small settlements display higher shares of low-access regimes. The findings challenge “single-engine” metropolitan development models and underscore the role of intermediate cities as distribution belts that underpin territorial cohesion. Finally, the paper nuances the left-behindness discourse by showing that perceived exclusion can emerge even near metropolitan areas when travel times to essential services exceed acceptable thresholds. Overall, perceived access operates as a key pathway linking territorial position to wellbeing, place attachment, and trust, reinforcing the argument that territorial justice is ultimately people-centred rather than place-centred.

MSc Johnson Kansiime, Dr Brian Beadle, Dr. Antje Jantsch (p)

Building on recent advances in the empirical operationalization of Sen’s Capability Approach, this study investigates how individual personality traits shape individuals’ capability levels. Prior work has demonstrated that capabilities can be rigorously measured as latent opportunity sets using multidimensional Bayesian Item Response Theory (IRT) and perception-based indicators rather than achieved functionings, thereby aligning measurement more closely with Sen’s normative emphasis on substantive freedoms. Extending this framework, the present study introduces personality structure and regional reference groups as key determinants of capability formation.
We draw on the RuWell dataset, a cross-sectional survey of rural residents in Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, and Romania. Using the previously validated multidimensional capability measure, we examine whether personality traits (operationalized through the Big Five dimensions) predict individual capability levels. In line with theoretical perspectives from subjective well-being through the lens of social comparison processes, we argue that capabilities are shaped not only by absolute personal dispositions but also by relative standing within one’s regional social environment (=regional reference groups). Individuals evaluate their opportunity sets partly by comparing their own traits (e.g., openness, extraversion, emotional stability) to the “typical trait constellation” of people in their region (county or rayon). These comparisons reflect perceived fit and room for action, and thus may expand or constrain capability levels even when objective resources remain constant.
Methodologically, we estimate a series of Bayesian hierarchical regressions models in which dimension-specific latent capability traits serve as outcome variables. Personality traits enter the model both as individual-level predictors and as relative deviation scores from the regional mean profile. This allows us to determine whether individuals with certain dispositions systematically experience larger opportunity sets, or whether the gap between one’s personality and the prevailing social environment matters. Furthermore, the Bayesian framework enables us to incorporate measurement uncertainty from the latent capability estimates directly into the regression model, ensuring that inferences respect the probabilistic nature of the underlying IRT measurement.
We expect three key contributions. First, we introduce personality structure as a meaningful psychological conversion factor in the Capability Approach, capturing how internal dispositions shape individuals’ ability to transform resources into real freedoms. Second, by integrating regional reference groups, we build a conceptual and empirical bridge between capability research and theory of social comparison. Third, our findings will provide new insights into why people with similar objective circumstances perceive different opportunity sets, and why regional environments may amplify or attenuate these perceptions depending on personality–context alignment.

Dr. Thanasis Ziogas (p), Dr Anastasia Panori, Professor Dimitris Ballas

This study investigates the relationship between individual life satisfaction and different typologies of left-behind areas across the European Union at the NUTS-2 level, while also examining the moderating role of digital characteristics in this relationship. Using a novel dataset of approximately 7,000 individuals collected under the Horizon MOBI-TWIN project, we analyze how living in distinct left-behind contexts, as classified by Velthuis et al. (2023) into six categories ranging from long-term economic prosperity to disconnected and high-poverty regions, shapes subjective well-being. Additionally, we integrate regional digital economy and societal characteristics from EUROSTAT with individual-level digital perceptions from the survey dataset to explore the role of digital connectivity in either amplifying or mitigating the effects of left-behindness on life satisfaction. Empirically, we employ multivariate regression analysis and instrumental variable regression to estimate the effect of left-behindness on well-being, while also examining the role of digital characteristics in this relationship.Our findings will contribute to understanding the spatial determinants of life satisfaction and the extent to which digital inclusion can serve as a buffer against the adverse effects of regional socio-economic decline. These insights have important implications for regional policy and digital development strategies aimed at fostering well-being in structurally disadvantaged and marginalised areas.

Dr. Gundi Knies (p)

Wellbeing research is increasingly used to move beyond GDP, yet empirical work on the geography of subjective wellbeing still often relies on single-item life satisfaction and a binary rural-urban distinction-choices that can conceal spatial inequalities in domains linked to social cohesion and mental health. Using European Social Survey Round 6 data for 24 European countries (n≈30,000), this study applies a multidimensional “Personal and Social Wellbeing” framework to map wellbeing across five settlement types (cities, suburbs, towns, villages, countryside) and five welfare-regime clusters. We construct composite indices for evaluative wellbeing, affective wellbeing, social wellbeing, basic psychological needs satisfaction, mental resources, and life satisfaction. Across Europe, the commonly reported “rural happiness advantage” in life satisfaction and affective wellbeing largely disappears after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic composition. In contrast, advantages for villages and countryside persist for social wellbeing and mental resources, indicating that smaller settlements may provide protective environments for trust, reciprocity, belonging, and psychological resilience (i.e., dimensions central to contemporary concerns about loneliness, stress, and discontent). Welfare regimes condition these gradients: spatial disparities are comparatively muted in Nordic contexts, while stronger urban penalties, especially in evaluative wellbeing, are evident in parts of Eastern Europe. Country-level results further show that “wellbeing peaks” vary by dimension, underscoring that there is no single rural-urban hierarchy of subjective wellbeing. Overall, the findings demonstrate that spatial wellbeing is multidimensional and institutionally embedded, and that relying on life satisfaction alone can misdiagnose where (and in which dimensions) territorial wellbeing gaps emerge - an important implication for place-sensitive wellbeing policy and governance beyond GDP.

Prof. Philip Morrison (p)

It has long been known that personality traits (such as the Big Five) have a profound influence on how one reacts to context, be it spatial, temporal, situational or chronic. As personality types are combinations of traits their influence is of complementary interest. Many wellbeing studies conducted by geographers, economists and regional scientists omit trait (or types) as arguments in their models of wellbeing (voluntarily or involuntarily) and the implications of their omission or inclusion remain unclear.
This paper is in two parts. Part 1 models the distribution of several measures of wellbeing from YOU Survey questions put to first year students on a university campus in New Zealand: see (Morrison et al., 2023, Liu et al., 2023). The same survey was applied to three separate cohorts of freshmen - in the year preceding COVID-19 (2019), during the breakout (2020) and the year after (2021).
I pool the three cohorts (n= 4000) and estimate three cross-sectional models of wellbeing: 1) without traits, 2) with traits and 3) with personality types. I test the effect of COVID-19 as an exogenous shock in the presence and absence of traits and types. Tests for heterogeneity by age, sex and ethnicity are conducted.
Part 2 retests the impact of COVID-19 including and excluding traits and types using a longitudinal panel sample that follows each of the three baseline YOU surveys for four years (two follow-up surveys per year). This design allows me to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of the same student with and without controls for traits and types.
The purpose of the paper is to assess the consequences of omitting or including measures of personality in models of wellbeing under separate environmental conditions.
References
LIU, I., MORRISON, P. S. & ZENG, D. 2023. Wellbeing heterogeneity within and among university students. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 19, 215-244.
MORRISON, P. S., LIU, I. & ZENG, D. 2023. Well-being and ill-being on campus. International Journal of Wellbeing, 13, 64-93.